Questions on Yoreh Deah, Choshen Mishpat

derech hamelech:

A. by a lach blach, we would certainly say the whole thing is meurav. the only nafka minah I can think of regarding if it is bishul would be for basar b’chalav as to whether it is d’oraysa and assur b’hanaa. I imagine we would follow the regular rules of tassaa gavara and say it only cooked kdai klipa.

B. Regarding irui and kli sheni, bear in mind that issur has another factor over hilchos shabbos in that on shabbos we are only concerned with bishul. Kli sheni, for instance, although it is not mevashel, is maflit u’mavlia according to the taz following rashal (not at same time though).

Apashutayid: Siman 116:2. According to Rema, it is assur lechatchila and mutar bdieved in same oven at same time. I believe one after another would be ok unless the oven was so small as to be considered like a pot cover. (108:1)

According to Shach 116:1, cooked at same time is assur bdieved.

According to Taz 116:2 we can allow together lechatchila if it is a “large oven”. A “large oven” holds 12 esronim.

Derech: I don’t know about the fish and water.

YW Editor: According to Mechaber Siman 11:1, it depends where he lives. If he lives in the “kefarim”, we need him to ignore 3 invitations before we put him bnidui. If he lives in the city, we put him bnidui after one ignored invitation.

mod: please delete previous post, I pushed enter in the middle mistakenly.

PLEASE NOTE THAT EVERYTHING I WRITE, ESPECIALLY THIS POST, IS NOT INTENDED TO BE RELIED ON. (Or, as Montaigne said, “All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice. I should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed.”)

Ok. Ovens are discussed in siman 108:1-2.

We generally say that to roast basar and chalav or issur and heter in the same oven is not allowed but is ok if you did provided that the oven was not sealed. It is only a problem if one of the two has an oily nature.

If you are cooking them in pots, it is allowed to be done, provided that the oven is not sealed. If one of them is covered, even with dough, it is allowed to be done.

If the one of them is spicy, it is a problem even bdieved unless one is covered. (Here, the shach 10 is machmir lechatchila regarding a dough covering.)

No mention is made of any issur lechatchila or bdieved to do one after the other.

However, the Rema mentions that if you were to roast the two under a pan, and the pan were to receive the steam of the two, all the cases are assur bdieved even one after another, unless one was covered.

I have heard that our ovens are considered to be like the pan which receives the steam. If this is so, it would be assur even one after another, even if cooked in pots, unless one was covered.

It still would be ok if neither one had an oily nature, even lechatchila. I do not think this is what is done in my house.

Para Aduma:

A. A woman is definitely obligated to be bodek her levanim during each of the bedikos of the seven days. It is explicit in in R’ Akiva Eiger 186:4. It is also pahut, since for what other reason must she wear levanim? I have heard that some kallah teachers teach that she is not obligated to check. This is an error.

B. Yes, if she has an excuse why she needed to say she was tamei.

This is trickier if she did an action which showed she is tamei. We can still allow it if she told her husband in advance that she was going to do so. For example if she wanted to hide her pregnancy. (Taz 185:2) Also if she was unable to accomplish her objective by just speaking. (shach 185:5)

C. Hmmm. How about if she did the chafifa and then fell into the mikva? She would still have daas once she fell though. Maybe she did the chafifa, fell into the mikva, and hit her head and was knocked out? You tell me a case.

CKBSHL:

Generally if something other than water (and certain water based liquids) were to fall into a mikva, and changed its appearance, it invalidates the mikva. (YD 201:25) However, if the “mikva” were a spring, even if the appearance is changed by the liquid which fell in, it is still a valid “mikva”. (201:28) Oceans are considered a spring. (201:5)

One would therefore imagine that one may indeed tovel in the oil spill.

Unless one wished to argue that since the oil does not mix with the water, it is not part of the ocean?

Chulent:

I’m sorry, I missed your question. I’ll try to get to it tomorrow.

Chulent: we first need to mention that there are two different things referred to as “kavua”. This is partially because siman 110 deals with two different types of “Rov”.

There is a rov where we have a piece which comes either from issur or heter and there is a rov of one of them. The example is 9 stores selling kosher and one store selling treif.

In this case we say “kol dparish, meruba parish”, meaning that we assume that the piece in question came from the majority. However, we also say that if it was “kavua”, here defined as that the uncertainty was known while the piece was in its original place (the store- example, you were spacing out and didn’t know which store you were in), then we do not assume the piece came from the majority, rather it is an equal safek. This is min hatora and learned from “v’arav lo v’kam” (BK 44b)

There is another rov which is the concept that if a piece is lost in a mixture, it takes on the status of the majority. This is min hatora and learned from “acharei rabim l’hatos”. Hence, if a piece of treif were to be mixed among two pieces of kosher meat, they are all permited. (We throw out one, 109:1.)

However, the rabanan decreed that certain significant items are not batul in a majority. http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/eggs-davar-shebiminyan

They called this “kavua”. It is sometimes referred to as “kavua derabanan”.

The case you cited with the seven cows, the maharit said that the cows which were taken to the store are ok because of the first rov we discussed. The cows in the house were not “parish” so that cannot apply. We still need to consider the second rov, to say chad btrei batul. We are not able to say that either because the pieces were significant.

So, in your house, if pieces of issur are mixed among heter, it will not be “kavua d’oraisa”, but will depend on a myriad of other factors. Basically, the whole siman 109 and much of 110.

Charlie;

Regarding the rabbi who supervise the restaurant and is accused of financial crimes.

An accusation alone would not suffice to make him pasul for eidus. We would need two proper witnesses testifying to his crime.

Now, even if he were found to be a gazlan, he would still be reliable as a mashgiach. See YD 2:6 that someone who is pasul for eidus is reliable to be a shochet unless he is a mumar for gezel. To be a mumar, he would have to do it 3 times (pri megadim on shach 2:19).

So, until we have proper testimony that he stole 3 times, we can rely on him.

Charlie:

Regarding the renter whose landlord is ripping him off.

This is largely beyond my area of study. I’ll mention some ideas though.

Assuming that according to Jewish law you are entitled to not pay him, the question is, are you obligated to not sue him in secular courts even though it will likely cause you a loss?

According to Rema 4:1, you are not allowed to take judgment into your hands by appealing to secular courts, even in a situation where you are otherwise allowed to. You are required to get permission from beis din, and the beis din should allow you to go to the courts if it is necessary.

More regarding the mashgiach accused of fraud:

kasha, you are certainly correct that we would need a proper kabalas eidus as well.

I would add to my previous post that even if we were to establish him as a mumar for gezel, he still is not totally unreliable. It is a machlokes by a mumar whether we trust him for shechita (2:6). Even those who do not, only require that we check the knife but still rely on him to do a proper shechita.

In fact, if one’s animals are stolen and found slaughtered, they are permitted provided that most of the burglars of the city are jewish (1:4)

I wonder if it is worse in our case, since he is being paid for his services and might not wish to lose the client by saying it is not kosher. Since his sin is money related, it is possible that would make it worse. We find a similar idea in choshen mishpat 34. I don’t know.